Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 21, 2024 / Notices 13113 

1See Docket No. RM2018–3, Order Adopting 

Final Rules Relating to Non-Public Information, 

June 27, 2018, Attachment A at 19–22 (Order No. 

4679). 

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

Analysis 

Agency: Retirement Operations, 

Retirement Services, Office of Personnel 

Management. 

Title: Application to Make Deposit or 

Redeposit (CSRS), and Application to 

Make Service Credit Payment for 

Civilian Service (FERS). 

OMB Number: 3206–0134. 

Affected Public: Individual or 

Households. 

Number of Respondents: 150. 

Estimated Time per Respondent: 30 

minutes. 

Total Burden Hours: 75. 

Office of Personnel Management. 

Kayyonne Marston, 

Federal Register Liaison. 

[FR Doc. 2024–03443 Filed 2–20–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325–38–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. MC2024–191 and CP2024–197] 

New Postal Products 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a 

recent Postal Service filing for the 

Commission’s consideration concerning 

a negotiated service agreement. This 

notice informs the public of the filing, 

invites public comment, and takes other 

administrative steps. 

DATES: Comments are due: February 23, 

2024. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

electronically via the Commission’s 

Filing Online system at http://

www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit 

comments electronically should contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section by 

telephone for advice on filing 

alternatives. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 

202–789–6820. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. Docketed Proceeding(s) 

I. Introduction 

The Commission gives notice that the 

Postal Service filed request(s) for the 

Commission to consider matters related 

to negotiated service agreement(s). The 

request(s) may propose the addition or 

removal of a negotiated service 

agreement from the Market Dominant or 

the Competitive product list, or the 

modification of an existing product 

currently appearing on the Market 

Dominant or the Competitive product 

list. 

Section II identifies the docket 

number(s) associated with each Postal 

Service request, the title of each Postal 

Service request, the request’s acceptance 

date, and the authority cited by the 

Postal Service for each request. For each 

request, the Commission appoints an 

officer of the Commission to represent 

the interests of the general public in the 

proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 

(Public Representative). Section II also 

establishes comment deadline(s) 

pertaining to each request. 

The public portions of the Postal 

Service’s request(s) can be accessed via 

the Commission’s website (http://

www.prc.gov). Non-public portions of 

the Postal Service’s request(s), if any, 

can be accessed through compliance 

with the requirements of 39 CFR 

3011.301.1

The Commission invites comments on 

whether the Postal Service’s request(s) 

in the captioned docket(s) are consistent 

with the policies of title 39. For 

request(s) that the Postal Service states 

concern Market Dominant product(s), 

applicable statutory and regulatory 

requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 

U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3030, and 39 

CFR part 3040, subpart B. For request(s) 

that the Postal Service states concern 

Competitive product(s), applicable 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 

39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 

39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. Comment 

deadline(s) for each request appear in 

section II. 

II. Docketed Proceeding(s) 

1. Docket No(s).: MC2024–191 and 

CP2024–197; Filing Title: USPS Request 

to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground 

Advantage Contract 190 to Competitive 

Product List and Notice of Filing 

Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance 

Date: February 15, 2024; Filing 

Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 

3040.130 through 3040.135, and 39 CFR 

3035.105; Public Representative: Alireza 

Motameni; Comments Due: February 23, 

2024. 

This Notice will be published in the 

Federal Register. 

Erica A. Barker, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024–03500 Filed 2–20–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–99534; File No. SR–BX– 

2024–004] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq 

BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed 

Rule Change To Amend Equity 7, 

Section 118 

February 14, 2024. 

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

(‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2

notice is hereby given that on February 

1, 2024, Nasdaq BX, Inc. (‘‘BX’’ or 

‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities 

and Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or 

‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule 

change as described in Items I, II, and 

III below, which Items have been 

prepared by the Exchange. The 

Commission is publishing this notice to 

solicit comments on the proposed rule 

change from interested persons. 

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of Substance of 

the Proposed Rule Change 

The Exchange proposes to amend its 

pricing schedule at Equity 7, Section 

118(a), as described further below. 

The text of the proposed rule change 

is available on the Exchange’s website at 

https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/ 

rulebook/bx/rules, at the principal office 

of the Exchange, and at the 

Commission’s Public Reference Room. 

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

In its filing with the Commission, the 

Exchange included statements 

concerning the purpose of and basis for 

the proposed rule change and discussed 

any comments it received on the 

proposed rule change. The text of these 

statements may be examined at the 

places specified in Item IV below. The 

Exchange has prepared summaries, set 

forth in sections A, B, and C below, of 

the most significant aspects of such 

statements. 

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

The purpose of the proposed rule 

change is to provide an additional 

calculation for purposes of determining 

whether a member qualifies for fees set 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
13114 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 21, 2024 / Notices 

3For example, the Exchange assess a fee of 

$0.0020 per share executed to members providing 

liquidity for a displayed order entered by a member 

that adds liquidity equal to or exceeding 0.05% of 

total Consolidated Volume during a month. See 

Equity 7, Section 118(a). Under the proposal, in 

addition to calculating the member’s volume and 

total Consolidated Volume exclusive of volume that 

consists of executions in securities priced less than 

$1, the distinct qualifying volume percentage 

threshold would be increased by 10%. Therefore, 

for purposes of this example, in order to qualify for 

the fee tier using volumes excluding sub-dollar 

activity, the member would need to add liquidity 

equal to or exceeding 0.055% of total Consolidated 

Volume during a month (i.e., 0.05% + 

(10%)(0.05%)). 

4 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 

5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5). 

forth in Equity 7, Section 118(a) that 

pertain to providing liquidity. 

The Exchange operates on the ‘‘takermaker’’ model, whereby it generally 

pays credits to members that take 

liquidity and charges fees to members 

that provide liquidity. In Equity 7, 

Section 118(a), the Exchange sets forth 

such credits and charges applicable for 

all securities prices at or above $1. 

Members may qualify for tiers of 

discounted fees and premium credits 

based, in part, upon the volume of their 

activities on the Exchange as a 

percentage of total ‘‘Consolidated 

Volume.’’ 

Pursuant to Equity 7, Section 118(a), 

the term ‘‘Consolidated Volume’’ means 

the total consolidated volume reported 

to all consolidated transaction reporting 

plans by all exchanges and trade 

reporting facilities during a month in 

equity securities, excluding executed 

orders with a size of less than one round 

lot. For purposes of calculating 

Consolidated Volume and the extent of 

a member’s trading activity, the 

following are excluded from both total 

Consolidated Volume and the member’s 

trading activity: (1) the date of the 

annual reconstitution of the Russell 

Investments Indexes; (2) the dates on 

which stock options, stock index 

options, and stock index futures expire 

(i.e., the third Friday of March, June, 

September, and December); (3) the dates 

of the rebalance of the MSCI Equities 

Indexes (i.e., on a quarterly basis); (4) 

the dates of the rebalance of the S&P 

400, S&P 500, and S&P 600 Indexes (i.e., 

on a quarterly basis); and (5) the date of 

the annual reconstitution of the Nasdaq100 and Nasdaq Biotechnology Indexes. 

Generally, the ratio of consolidated 

volumes in securities priced at or above 

$1 (‘‘dollar plus volume’’) relative to 

consolidated volumes inclusive of 

securities priced below a dollar is 

usually stable from month to month, 

such that ‘‘Consolidated Volume’’ has 

been a reasonable baseline for 

determining tiered incentives for 

members that execute dollar plus 

volume on the Exchange. However, 

there have been a few months where 

volumes in securities priced below a 

dollar (‘‘sub-dollar volume’’) have been 

elevated, thereby impacting the ratio 

mentioned above. 

Anomalous rises in sub-dollar volume 

stand to have a material adverse impact 

on members’ qualifications for pricing 

tiers/incentives because such 

qualifications depend members upon 

achieving threshold percentages of 

volumes as a percentage of Consolidated 

Volume, and an extraordinary rise in 

sub-dollar volume stands to elevate 

Consolidated Volume. As a result, 

members may find it more difficult, if 

not practically impossible, to qualify for 

or to continue to qualify for their 

existing pricing tiers during months 

where there are such rises in sub-dollar 

volumes, even if their dollar plus 

volumes have not diminished relative to 

prior months. 

The Exchange believes that it would 

be unfair for its members that execute 

significant dollar plus volumes on the 

Exchange to fail to achieve or to lose 

their existing pricing tiers for such 

volumes due to anomalous behavior that 

is extraneous to them. Therefore, the 

Exchange wishes to amend its Rules to 

help avoid extraordinary spikes in subdollar volumes from adversely affecting 

a member’s qualification of pricing tiers 

for their dollar plus stock executions. 

Accordingly, the Exchange proposes 

to amend its pricing schedule at Equity 

7, Section 118(a) to state that, for 

purposes of calculating a member’s 

qualifications for fees that pertain to 

providing liquidity set forth in Section 

118(a), the Exchange will calculate a 

member’s volume and total 

Consolidated Volume twice. First, the 

Exchange will calculate a member’s 

volume and total Consolidated Volume 

as presently set forth in Equity 7, 

Section 118(a) (i.e., inclusive of volume 

that consists of executions in securities 

priced less than $1). Second, the 

Exchange will calculate a member’s 

volume and total Consolidated Volume 

exclusive of volume that consists of 

executions in securities priced less than 

$1, while also increasing the distinct 

qualifying volume percentage 

thresholds, as set forth in Section 

118(a), by 10%. Thereafter, the 

Exchange proposes to assess which of 

these two calculations would qualify the 

member for the most advantageous fees 

for the month and then it will apply 

those to the member. 

Although the Exchange wishes to 

avoid extraordinary spikes in sub-dollar 

volumes from adversely affecting a 

member’s qualification of pricing tiers 

for their dollar plus stock executions, 

the Exchange proposes to include 

certain limits on the proposal to 

efficiently allocate the Exchange’s 

limited resources for pricing tiers/ 

incentives. Specifically, as noted above, 

the Exchange proposes to limit the 

application of the proposed calculation 

excluding sub-dollar volumes to those 

incentives in Section 118(a) that pertain 

to providing liquidity. In addition, as 

noted above, the Exchange proposes to 

increase the distinct qualifying volume 

percentage thresholds set forth in 

Section 118(a) by 10% for purposes of 

the proposed calculation excluding subdollar volumes.3 The Exchange wishes 

to impose such limitations in order to 

limit the cost impact on the Exchange, 

while still providing some relief to 

members in months with extraordinary 

spikes in sub-dollar volumes. The 

Exchange has limited resources to 

devote to incentive programs, and it is 

appropriate for the Exchange to 

reallocate these incentives periodically 

in a manner that best achieves the 

Exchange’s overall mix of objectives. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The Exchange believes that its 

proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) 

of the Act,4 in general, and furthers the 

objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) 

of the Act,5 in particular, in that it 

provides for the equitable allocation of 

reasonable dues, fees and other charges 

among members and issuers and other 

persons using any facility, and is not 

designed to permit unfair 

discrimination between customers, 

issuers, brokers, or dealers. 

The Exchange’s proposed changes to 

its pricing schedule are reasonable in 

several respects. As a threshold matter, 

the Exchange is subject to significant 

competitive forces in the market for 

equity securities transaction services 

that constrain its pricing determinations 

in that market. The fact that this market 

is competitive has long been recognized 

by the courts. In NetCoalition v. 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 

the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ‘‘[n]o 

one disputes that competition for order 

flow is ‘fierce.’ . . . As the SEC 

explained, ‘[i]n the U.S. national market 

system, buyers and sellers of securities, 

and the broker-dealers that act as their 

order-routing agents, have a wide range 

of choices of where to route orders for 

execution’; [and] ‘no exchange can 

afford to take its market share 

percentages for granted’ because ‘no 

exchange possesses a monopoly, 

regulatory or otherwise, in the execution 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 21, 2024 / Notices 13115 

6NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 

2010) (quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 

59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782–83 

(December 9, 2008) (SR–NYSEArca–2006–21)). 

7Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 

(June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) 

(‘‘Regulation NMS Adopting Release’’). 

8As noted above, in considering whether a 

member meets qualifying fee criteria using the 

proposed calculation excluding sub-dollar volumes, 

the distinct qualifying volume percentage 

thresholds would be increased by 10%. 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 

of order flow from broker 

dealers’. . . .’’ 6

The Commission and the courts have 

repeatedly expressed their preference 

for competition over regulatory 

intervention in determining prices, 

products, and services in the securities 

markets. In Regulation NMS, while 

adopting a series of steps to improve the 

current market model, the Commission 

highlighted the importance of market 

forces in determining prices and SRO 

revenues and, also, recognized that 

current regulation of the market system 

‘‘has been remarkably successful in 

promoting market competition in its 

broader forms that are most important to 

investors and listed companies.’’ 7

Numerous indicia demonstrate the 

competitive nature of this market. For 

example, clear substitutes to the 

Exchange exist in the market for equity 

security transaction services. The 

Exchange is only one of several equity 

venues to which market participants 

may direct their order flow. Competing 

equity exchanges offer similar tiered 

pricing structures to that of the 

Exchange, including schedules of 

rebates and fees that apply based upon 

members achieving certain volume 

thresholds. 

Within this environment, market 

participants can freely and often do shift 

their order flow among the Exchange 

and competing venues in response to 

changes in their respective pricing 

schedules. 

The Exchange believes that the 

proposal is reasonable and equitable 

because, in its absence, members may 

experience material adverse impacts on 

their ability to qualify for certain 

incentives during a month with an 

anomalous rise in sub-dollar volumes. 

The Exchange does not wish to penalize 

members that execute significant 

volumes on the Exchange due to 

anomalous and extraneous trading 

activities of a small number of firms in 

sub-dollar securities. The proposed rule 

would seek to provide a means for 

members that provide liquidity to avoid 

such a penalty by determining whether 

calculating member volume and total 

Consolidated Volume to include or 

exclude sub-dollar volume 8 would 

result in Exchange members qualifying 

for the most advantageous charges, and 

then applying the calculations that 

would result in the incentives for 

providing liquidity that are most 

advantageous to each member. The 

Exchange believes it is reasonable to 

limit the proposal by applying the 

proposed calculation to fees that pertain 

to providing liquidity and increasing the 

distinct qualifying volume percentage 

thresholds by 10% when using the 

proposed calculation excluding subdollar volumes because the Exchange 

has limited resources to devote to 

incentive programs, and it is 

appropriate for the Exchange to 

reallocate these incentives periodically 

in a manner that best achieves the 

Exchange’s overall mix of objectives. 

The Exchange believes that the 

proposed rule change is an equitable 

allocation and is not unfairly 

discriminatory because the Exchange 

does not intend for the proposal to 

advantage any particular member and 

the Exchange will apply the proposed 

calculation to all similarly situated 

members. 

Those participants that are 

dissatisfied with the changes to the 

Exchange’s pricing schedule are free to 

shift their order flow to competing 

venues that provide more favorable fees 

or generous incentives. 

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Burden on Competition 

The Exchange does not believe that 

the proposed rule change will impose 

any burden on competition not 

necessary or appropriate in furtherance 

of the purposes of the Act. 

Intramarket Competition 

The Exchange does not believe that its 

proposal will place any category of 

Exchange participant at a competitive 

disadvantage. 

The Exchange intends for its proposal 

to help avoid pricing disadvantages due 

to anomalous spikes in sub-dollar 

volumes and is not intended to provide 

a competitive advantage to any 

particular member. The Exchange also 

intends for its proposal to reallocate its 

limited resources more efficiently and to 

align them with the Exchange’s overall 

mix of objectives. The Exchange notes 

that its members are free to trade on 

other venues to the extent they believe 

that the proposal is not attractive. As 

one can observe by looking at any 

market share chart, price competition 

between exchanges is fierce, with 

liquidity and market share moving 

freely between exchanges in reaction to 

fee and credit changes. 

Intermarket Competition 

In terms of inter-market competition, 

the Exchange notes that it operates in a 

highly competitive market in which 

market participants can readily favor 

competing venues if they deem fee 

levels at a particular venue to be 

excessive, or rebate opportunities 

available at other venues to be more 

favorable. In such an environment, the 

Exchange must continually adjust its 

credits and fees to remain competitive 

with other exchanges and with 

alternative trading systems that have 

been exempted from compliance with 

the statutory standards applicable to 

exchanges. Because competitors are free 

to modify their own credits and fees in 

response, and because market 

participants may readily adjust their 

order routing practices, the Exchange 

believes that the degree to which credit 

or fee changes in this market may 

impose any burden on competition is 

extremely limited. The proposal is 

reflective of this competition. 

Even the largest U.S. equities 

exchange by volume has less than 20% 

market share, which in most markets 

could hardly be categorized as having 

enough market power to burden 

competition. Moreover, as noted above, 

price competition between exchanges is 

fierce, with liquidity and market share 

moving freely between exchanges in 

reaction to fee and credit changes. This 

is in addition to free flow of order flow 

to and among off-exchange venues, 

which comprises upwards of 40% of 

industry volume. 

In sum, if the changes proposed 

herein are unattractive to market 

participants, it is likely that the 

Exchange will lose market share as a 

result. Accordingly, the Exchange does 

not believe that the proposed changes 

will impair the ability of members or 

competing order execution venues to 

maintain their competitive standing in 

the financial markets. 

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received From 

Members, Participants, or Others 

No written comments were either 

solicited or received. 

III. Date of Effectiveness of the 

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 

Commission Action 

The foregoing rule change has become 

effective pursuant to Section 

19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.9

At any time within 60 days of the 

filing of the proposed rule change, the 

Commission summarily may 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
13116 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 21, 2024 / Notices 

10 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

temporarily suspend such rule change if 

it appears to the Commission that such 

action is: (i) necessary or appropriate in 

the public interest; (ii) for the protection 

of investors; or (iii) otherwise in 

furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 

If the Commission takes such action, the 

Commission shall institute proceedings 

to determine whether the proposed rule 

should be approved or disapproved. 

IV. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

arguments concerning the foregoing, 

including whether the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Act. 

Comments may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s internet 

comment form (https://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml); or 

• Send an email to rule-comments@

sec.gov. Please include file number SR– 

BX–2024–004 on the subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Secretary, Securities and Exchange 

Commission, 100 F Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to file 

number SR–BX–2024–004. This file 

number should be included on the 

subject line if email is used. To help the 

Commission process and review your 

comments more efficiently, please use 

only one method. The Commission will 

post all comments on the Commission’s 

internet website (https://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the 

submission, all subsequent 

amendments, all written statements 

with respect to the proposed rule 

change that are filed with the 

Commission, and all written 

communications relating to the 

proposed rule change between the 

Commission and any person, other than 

those that may be withheld from the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 

available for website viewing and 

printing in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20549 on official 

business days between the hours of 

10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the 

filing also will be available for 

inspection and copying at the principal 

office of the Exchange. Do not include 

personal identifiable information in 

submissions; you should submit only 

information that you wish to make 

available publicly. We may redact in 

part or withhold entirely from 

publication submitted material that is 

obscene or subject to copyright 

protection. All submissions should refer 

to file number SR–BX–2024–004, and 

should be submitted on or before March 

13, 2024. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.10

Sherry R. Haywood, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024–03452 Filed 2–20–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Investment Company Act Release No. 

35131; File No. 812–15488] 

Barings Corporate Investors, et al. 

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘SEC’’). 

ACTION: Notice. 

Notice of application for an order 

(‘‘Order’’) under sections 17(d) and 57(i) 

of the Investment Company Act of 1940 

(the ‘‘Act’’) and rule 17d–1 under the 

Act to permit certain joint transactions 

otherwise prohibited by sections 17(d) 

and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d–1 

under the Act. 

Summary of Application: Applicants 

request an order to amend a previous 

order granted by the Commission that 

permits certain business development 

companies (‘‘BDCs’’) and closed-end 

management investment companies to 

co-invest in portfolio companies with 

each other and with certain affiliated 

investment entities. 

Applicants: Barings Corporate 

Investors, Barings Global Short Duration 

High Yield Fund, CI Subsidiary Trust, 

Barings Participation Investors, PI 

Subsidiary Trust, Barings LLC, 

Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance 

Company, C.M. Life Insurance 

company, Barings Finance LLC, Tower 

Square Capital Partners IV, L.P., Tower 

Square Capital Partners IV–A, L.P., 

Barings BDC, Inc., Energy Hardware 

Holdings, Inc., SIC Investment Holdings 

LLC, Barings Private Credit Corporation, 

Barings Capital Investment Corporation, 

BCIC Holdings, Inc., Barings Private 

Equity Opportunities and Commitments 

Fund, Barings Global Credit Fund 

(LUX)—Segregated Loan Account 5, 

Barings Segregated Loans 5 S.A` R.L., 

BAYVK R Private Debt SCS, SICAV–FIS, 

BAYVK R PD 1 Loan S.A` R.L., Barings 

Umbrella Fund plc—Barings European 

High Yield Bond Fund, Barings Global 

Investment Funds plc—Barings 

European Loan Fund, Barings European 

Loan Limited, BCF Europe Funding 

Limited, BCF Senior Funding I 

Designated Activity Company, BCF 

Senior Funding I LLC, MassMutual 

Global Floating Rate Fund, Barings 

Umbrella Fund plc—Barings Global 

High Yield Bond Fund, Barings Global 

Investment Funds 2 plc—Barings Global 

High Yield Credit Strategies Fund, 

Barings Global High Yield Credit 

Strategies Limited, Barings Global 

Investment Funds plc—Barings Global 

Loan Fund, Barings Global Loan 

Limited, Barings Global Credit Fund 

(LUX)—Barings Global Private Loan 

Fund, Barings Global Private Loans 1 

S.A` R.L., Barings Umbrella Fund plc— 

Barings Global Senior Secured Bond 

Fund, Barings CMS Fund, LP, Barings 

Umbrella Fund plc—Barings U.S. High 

Yield Bond Fund, Barings Direct 

Lending 2018 LP, Barings European 

Direct Lending 1 L.P., Barings European 

Direct Lending 1 S.A` R.L., Barings 

Global Credit Fund (LUX)—Barings 

European Private Loan Fund II, Barings 

European Private Loans 2 S.A` R.L., 

Barings Global Credit Fund (LUX)— 

Barings European Private Loan Fund III, 

Barings European Private Loans 3 S.A`

R.L., Barings Global Credit Fund 

(LUX)—Barings European Private Loan 

Fund III (A), Barings European Private 

Loans 3A S.A` R.L., Barings Global 

Investment Funds plc—Barings Global 

Loan and High Yield Bond Fund, 

Barings Global Loan and High Yield 

Bond Limited, Barings Global 

Investment Funds plc—Barings Global 

Loan Select Responsible Exclusions 

Fund, Barings Global Loan Select 

Responsible Exclusions Limited, 

Barings Global Credit Fund (LUX)— 

Barings Global Private Loan Fund 2, 

Barings Global Private Loans 2 S.A` R.L., 

Barings Global Credit Fund (LUX)— 

Barings Global Private Loan Fund 3, 

Barings Global Private Loans 3 S.A` R.L., 

Barings Global Private Loan Fund 4 

SCSp, Barings Global Private Loans 4 

S.A` R.L., Barings Global Private Loan 

Fund 4(S) SCSp, Barings Global Private 

Loans 4(S) S.A` R.L., Barings Global 

Credit Fund (LUX)—Segregated Loan 

Account 3, Barings Segregated Loans 3 

S.A` R.L., Barings Global Credit Fund 

(LUX)—Segregated Loan Account 1, 

Barings Segregated Loans 1 S.A` R.L., 

Barings Global Credit Fund (LUX)— 

Segregated Loan Account 2, Barings 

Segregated Loans 2 S.A` R.L., Barings 

Global Investment Funds plc—Global 

Private Loan Strategy Fund 1, Barings 

Global Private Loan Strategy 1 Limited, 

Barings Global Credit Fund (LUX)— 

Segregated Loan Account 4, Barings 

Global Credit Fund (LUX)—Segregated 

Loan Account 6, Barings Segregated 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES